Changes in Knowledge Across Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study focuses on children’s understanding of their own knowledge and how it changes over time. Preschool-aged children perform above chance when asked about current knowledge, but only children older than 5 years of age performed above chance for past, future, or intraindividual knowledge (Atance & Caza, 2018; Caza et al., 2016). However, we do not currently know whether awareness of past and future knowledge is related. While this type of awareness seems conceptually related to metacognition (the awareness of one’s own ignorance or knowledge; Rohwer et al., 2012), the relation to this skill is unknown. Thus, the goal of the current study is to investigate how children’s awareness of their own epistemic knowledge is related to their metacognitive abilities. This study will explore children between the ages of 3.5- through 5-years-old, who will be assessed on their understanding of their current, past, and future knowledge, as well as other tasks assessing metacognitive skills. Further, we will explore the role of theory of mind and inhibitory control. We predict that children who do well on the epistemic knowledge task for the past will display better performance on the task asking about the future, and that both will be related to the other cognitive skills measured. Due to the current global situation, we converted our study materials to an online format. Our poster will highlight this process and discuss ways to approach challenges in online developmental testing. Though data collection is ongoing, we present initial insight into the process, drawbacks, and benefits of online testing. Keywords: Epistemic Knowledge, Metacognition, Theory of Mind, Child Development References Atance, C. M., & Caza, J. S. (2018). “Will I know more in the future than I know now?” Preschoolers’ judgments about changes in general knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 857–865. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/dev0000480 Caza, J. S., Atance, C. M., & Bernstein, D. M. (2016). Older (but not younger) preschoolers understand that knowledge differs between people and across time. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12130 Rohwer, M., Kloo, D., & Perner, J. (2012). Escape from metaignorance: How children develop an understanding of their own lack of knowledge. Child Development, 83(6), 1869–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01830.x
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".